LETTER 


FROM 

E.  D,  BAKER,  OE  ILLINOIS, 

TO  HIS  CONSTITUENTS, 

ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE 

ENGLISH  COEN  LAWS. 


To  the  People  of  the  Seventh  Congressional  District  of  Illinois  : 

Fellow-Citizens  :  The  recent  indications  of  a  change  in  the  policy  of  Great 
Britain,  by  a  repeal  or  modification  of  the  “Com  Laws,”  have  naturally  excited 
a  great  degree  of  public  attention.  It  is  thought  to  be  a  matter  of  peculiar  impor¬ 
tance  to  the  West,  as  a  grain -growing  country,  and  I  have  thought  proper  to 
address  my  constituents  a  letter  upon  the  subject.  It  is  possible  that  I  may  im- 
body  some  information  which  may  not  be  entirely  useless  to  them ;  and,  at  any 
rate,  it  may  serve  to  remind  them  that  I  am  not  regardless  of  their  interests. 

The  late  arrivals  from  England  announce  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the 
British  Ministry  to  modify  immediately,  and  ultimately  to  repeal,  the  restrictions 
upon  the  introduction  of  foreign  grain  into  England.  I  think  there  is  no  reason¬ 
able  doubt  that  this  intention  will  be  carried  into  effect.  I  desire  to  examine 
the  probable  result  of  this  change  upon  the  interests  of  our  people,  and  I  shall 
therefore  present  here  a  sketch  of  the  English  “  Corn  Laws.”  The  actual  duty 
at  present  on  wheat  and  flour  is  levied  by  what  is  called  the  “  Sliding  scale,”  and 
is  as  follows: 


When  flour  per  barrel  is  worth  $7  65  and  under . the  duty  is  $3  00 

7  65  and  under  7  80 . “  ....  2  85 

7  80  and  under  8  25 . “  ....  2  70 

8  25  and  under  8  40 . “  ....  2  55 

8  40  and  under  8  55 . “  ....  2  40 

8  55  and  under  8  70 . “  ....  2  25 

8  70  and  under  8  85 . <£  ....  2  10 

8  85  and  under  9  00 . “  ....  1  95 

9  00  and  under  9  15 . “  ....  1  80 

9  15  and  under  9  30 . “  ....  1  65 

9  30  and  under  9  45 . “  ....  1  50 

9  45  and  under  9  60 . “  ....  1  35 

9  60  and  under  9  75 . “  ....  1  20 

9  75  and  under  9  90  . “  ....1  05 

9  90  and  under  10  35 . “  ....  90 

10  35  and  under  10  50 . “  ....  75 

10  50  and  under  10  65 . “  ....  60 

10  65  and  under  10  80 .  “  ....  45 

10  80  and  under  10  95 .  “  ....  30 

10  95  and  over . . . . . . .  15 

**'.'*.  '  .  ...  t  “  i  t 


2 


Duty  on  wheat  and  flour  imported  into  England  from  Canada. 


Whenever  wheat  per  quarter  is  worth  $13  20  and  under  . . . , . .  the  duty  is  $1  20 

13  20  and  under  $13  44  .  “  ....  96 

13  44  and  under  13  68  .  “  ....  72 

13  68  and  under  13  92  .  “  ....  48 

13  92  and  over .  “  ....  24 


Whenever  dour  per  barrel  is  worth 


$8  25  and  under  ...... 

8  25  and  under  $8  40 
8  41  and  under  8  55 
8  55  and  under  8  70 
8  70  and  over  . 


the  duty  is 


Cfr 
ii 
C  < 


$0  75 
.  60 
.  45 
.  30 
.  *  15 


It  may  be  well  to  remark  here,  that,  according  to  present  prices,  the  duty  on 
flour  is  three  dollars  a  barrel — the  Liverpool  price  varying  from  twenty-nine  to 
thirty  shillings. 

The  immediate  alteration  proposed  is  as  follows : 


That,  until  the  1st  day  of  February,  1849,  the  following  duties  shall  be  levied  on  dour,  if 
imported  from  any  foreign  country :  Whenever  the  average  price  of  dour,  made  up  and  published 
in  the  manner  required  by  law,  shall  be  for  every  barrel — 

Under  $6  60  . . . . . the  duty  shall  be  $1  38 

Over  6  60  and  under  $6  73  .  “  .  1  25 

6  73  and  under  6  87  .  “  ......  1  10 

6  87  and  under  7  01  . “  97 

6  91  and  under  7  15 .  “  83 

7  15  and  under  7  28  .  “ .  70 


And  that,  whenever  the  price  of  dour,  made  up  and  published  in  the  manner  required  by  law, 
shall  exceed  $7  28,  there  shall  then  be  an  invariable  duty  of  fifty-six  cents  per  barrel. 

This  ratio  of  duty  is  to  obtain  until  February,  1849,  when  the  duty  will  be¬ 
come  merely  nominal.  It  will  be  observed,  then,  that  at  the  present  price  of 
flour  in  England,  the  duty  under  the  proposed  reduction  would  be  about  one 
dollar  and  twenty-five  cents,  instead  of  three  dollars ;  that,  as  the  prices  rise,  the 
duty  would  fall  much  more  rapidly  than  it  now  does ;  and  that,  while  by  the 
law,  as  it  now  stands,  the  duty  on  a  quarter  or  eight  bushels  of  wheat,  when 
the  price  is  fifty-three  shillings,  would  be  about  seventeen  shillings ;  by  the  pro¬ 
posed  alteration,  it  will  only  be  four  shillings,  or  about  eighty-eight  cents. 

It  certainly  appears,  upon  a  view  of  these  facts,  as  if  the  proposed  reduction 
of  the  rate  of  duties  upon  wheat  and  flour  would  be  favorable  to  our  interests 
as  producers.  And  if  these  were  the  only  facts  necessary  to  be  considered,  the 
conclusion  would  be  a  reasonable  one ;  but  I  apprehend  that  many  other  things 
must  be  taken  into  the  account,  and  some  of  which,  I  venture  to  suggest. 

Let  us  inquire,  in  the  first  place,  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  demand 
for  wheat  and  flour  in  Great  Britain.  The  estimated  annual  consumption  of 
Great  Britain  may  be  stated  at  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  millions  of 
bushels  of  wheat,  of  which,  one  hundred  and  fourteen  millions  may  be  safely 
stated  to  be  produced  at  home,  leaving,  on  the  average,  for  any  given  number 
of  years,  certainly  less  than  fourteen  millions  of  bushels  to  be  supplied  by  im¬ 
portation.  In  1843,  for  instance,  the  amount  imported  was  about  twenty -three 
millions  of  bushels;  but  that  was  nearly  double  the  importation  of  1831.  It 
must  be  observed,  also,  that  a  comparison  of  imports  for  any  period  of  ten  years 
will  show  an  increase  of  consumption  over  average  production,  keeping  pace, 
no  doubt,  with  the  increased  number  of  persons  engaging  in  manufacturing  pur¬ 
suits,  and  the  rapid  advance  of  the  manufacturing  districts  in  England  ;  but  it 
must  also  be  remembered,  that  of  the  twenty-three  millions  of  bushels  sent  to 
England  in  1843,  Prussia  and  Germany  alone  furnished  over  fourteen  millions  ; 


o 


/ 


Vi,  V/2!  O 


3 


y/c 


5  r 


and  that,  even  in  1844,  the  whole  export  of  the  United  States  did  not  much  ex¬ 
ceed  seven  millions  of  bushels ;  and  that,  so  far  from  contributing  to  the  supply 
of  Great  Britain,  in  any  great  quantity,  we  sent  in  that  year  280,000  barrels  of 
flour,  or  1,400,000  bushels  of  wheat,  to  Brazil  alone,  while  our  whole  export 
to  England  direct  did  not  exceed  950,000  bushels. 

It  is  expected,  however,  that  the  reduction  of  the  duty  will  cause  an  increase 
•of  consumption  by  lowering  the  price ;  and  that  when  the  price  of  wheat  shall 
fall,  the  production  in  Great  Britain  will  be  lessened,  consequently  increasing 
the  necessity  for  importation.  There  is  no  doubt  more  bread  will  be  eaten  in 
England  when  the  price  is  low  than  when  it  is  high  ;  but  it  must  also  be 
remembered,  that  the  increase  of  consumption  so  caused  has  a  natural  and  not 
very  wide  limit,  and  accordingly  we  find,  that  although  a  short  crop  raises  the 
price  of  wheat  suddenly,  yet  the  demand  is  soon  supplied  by  importation,  and 
the  fall  of  the  market  again  makes  the  duty  prohibitory ;  while  a  succession  of 
plentiful  seasons,  or  even  a  single  abundant  harvest,  not  only  brings  down  the 
price  of  grain  at  home,  but  may  even  authorize  its  exportation.  If,  then,  there 
should  be  no  duty  whatever  upon  wheat  and  flour,  the  demand,  regulated  by 
natural  causes,  must  cease  at  the  point  where  the  wants  of  the  population  are 
supplied ;  and  whatever  the  policy  of  the  Government  may  be,  no  change  can 
materially  increase  the  consumption  of  the  whole  nation  for  any  given  period  of 
time. 

I  am  not,  of  course,  able  to  suggest  with  any  great  confidence  the  result  of 
the  repeal  of  the  corn  laws  upon  the  agricultural  production  of  England.  I 
think,  however,  that  any  expectation  of  a  material  reduction  in  the  quantity 
produced  will  prove  unfounded.  The  lands  of  England  are  owned  by  the  aris¬ 
tocracy.  I  believe  it  will  be  found  that  the  arable  land  is  divided  among  less  than 
15,000  persons.  Now,  taking  it  for  granted  that  the  reduction  of  the  duties 
will  lower  the  price,  it  is  obvious  to  me  that  the  principal  effect  of  the  decreased 
value  of  the  article  may  be  to  lessen  the  worth  of  the  land,  and  to  diminish  the 
rent  paid  to  the  great  landholders,  but  not  to  decrease  the  quantity  produced. 
The  agriculture  of  England  is  the  result  of  scientific  improvement  and  well 
directed  capital.  It  is  a  fixed  investment.  There  may  be  some  persons  who 
may  change  their  pursuits ;  there  cannot  be  much  change  in  the  use  of  capi¬ 
tal  already  vested.  There  is,  therefore,  not  much  reason  for  supposing  that  any 
change,  or  even  repeal,  of  the  corn  laws,  will  lessen  materially  the  quantity  of 
wheat  produced  in  Great  Britain,  or  that  it  will  increase  the  average  importa¬ 
tion.  If,  then,  there  is  no  good  reason  to  suppose  that  the  proposed  change  in 
the  British  corn  laws  will  materially  increase  the  demand  for  wheat  and  flour,  let 
us  next  examine  how  the  reduction  of  duties  is  to  affect  our  exports.  It  is  im¬ 
agined  by  many  persons  that  a  decrease  of  the  duty  will  lower  the  price  to  the 
extent  of  such  decrease;  it  being  often  argued,  that  the  duty  is  a  tax  upon  the 
consumer.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  as  England  cannot  raise  grain  enough 
in  any  given  series  of  years  to  supply  her  population,  that  the  true  principle  of 
protection  does  not  apply  to  breadstuff?  in  that  country;  for  as  no  encourage¬ 
ment  to  agriculture  can  supply  the  demand  for  home  consumption,  the  duty 
may  be  considered  as  a  bounty  to  the  landed  interests.  I  need  not  stop  to 
point  out  the  difference,  when  the  energies  and  resources  of  a  country  are  yet 
undeveloped,  and  when  the  protection  to  the  home  manufacture  creates  compe¬ 
tition  in  skill  and  investment  of  capital,  and  competition  reduces  the  price ; 
rihese  are  subjects  which  I  do  not  pretend  to  discuss ;  but  I  may  remark,  that 


4 


whatever  may  be  the  effect  of  the  reduction  of  the  duty  on  the  price  in  Eng¬ 
land,  there  are  strong  reasons  why  the  change  will  not  benefit  us. 

In  the  first  place,  our  export  of  wheat  and  flour,  does  not  keep  pace  with  the 
increase  of  our  population  : 


Year. 

Crop — bushels. 

Per  cent,  export¬ 
ed. 

Population. 

Proportion  to  each 
inhabitant. 

17,000,000 

28 

3,929,328 

4.36 

1800 

22,000,000 

15 

5,309,758 

4.15 

1810 

30,000,000 

m 

7,239,166 

4.16 

1820 

38,000,000 

15^ 

9,638,903 

3.95 

1830 

50,000,000 

12§ 

12,866,020 

3.9 

1840 

80,000,000 

14 

17,068,666 

4.7 

In  the  next  place,  although  we  have  actually  enjoyed  a  decided  and  great 
advantage  in  furnishing  wheat  and  flour  to  England  over  all  other  nations,  we 
have  not  been  able  to  compete  with  the  north  of  Europe. 

It  will  be  observed,  that,  in  1844,  while  we  have  exported  about  950,000 
bushels  of  wheat  directly  to  England,  we  have  exported  to  the  British  Ameri¬ 
can  Colonies  twenty-one  hundred  thousand.  The  reason  of  this  may  be  worth 
attention.  By  Sir  Robert  Peel’s  sliding  scale,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  duty  on 
wheat  or  flour  sent  from  the  United  States  to  England  would  be  nearly  three 
dollars  a  barrel,  at  the  price  at  this  time :  while  at  the  same  prices,  a  barrel  of 
flour  from  Canada  would  only  pay  seventy-five  cents. 

The  effect  of  this  has  been  to  cause  us  to  send  our  grain  and  flour  to  Eng¬ 
land  by  the  way  of  Canada,  at  which  place,  it  was,  in  1844,  allowed  to  enter 
at  a  nominal  duty.  We  had  then,  in  1844,  a  monopoly  of  the  English  market, 
or  at  least  we  had  the  opportunity  of  supplying  the  amount  required  at  a  much 
lower  rate  of  duty  than  any  other  nation.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  of  the  four¬ 
teen  millions  of  bushels  imported  into  England,  we  furnished  but  a  little  over 
three  millions,  and  the  rest,  or  about  eleven  millions,  was  supplied  by  the  Baltic 
and  the  Mediterranean*  Let  me  give  one  or  two  facts : 

In  1838,  England  received  from  Prussia  4,376,600  bushels  of  wheat;  in 
1839,  5,837,416  bushels;  in  1840,  6,158,356  bushels.  She  received  from 
Germany  in  1838,  2,455,675  bushels;  in  1839  and  1840,  still  more  than  in 
1838.  I  have  no  means  of  knowing  the  exact  amount  in  1844;  but  we  may 
know  the  extent  of  the  supply  from  those  and  other  countries  in  the  north  of 
Europe,  by  remembering  that  our  own  export  was  only  about  three  millions 
of  bushels — either  to  Canada  or  England.  If,  then,  with  all  the  advantage 
arising  from  the  course  of  trade  through  Canada,  and  the  low  colonial  duty 
upon  wheat  sent  from  thence  to  England,  we  have  only  sent  three  millions  out 
of  the  fourteen  millions  which  Great  Britain  imports,  what  will  be  the  state 
of  the  trade  when  the  duty  is  equalized,  and  when  Prussia,  Germany,  Hol¬ 
land,  Russia,  and  the  Mediterranean,  can  furnish  grain  upon  the  same  terms 
with  ourselves? 

In  the  second  place,  the  quantity  of  wheat  which  can  be  furnished  from  the 
places  1  have  mentioned  is  not  only  large,  but  greater  than  the  demand ;  stating 
it  as  I  have  at  an  average  of  fourteen  millions  of  bushels.  In  1841,  the  British 
Government  made  inquiries  of  their  consuls  and  agents  abroad  as  to  “  what 
c  quantity  of  grain  could  be  exported  to  England  from  the  different  places  men- 


5 


e  tioned  below,  if  the  wheat  trade  in  England  were  constantly  open  at  a  mode- 
‘  rate  duty.”  The  following  table  contains  the  substance  of  their  replies : 

St.  Petersburg,  -  -  - .  1,540,000  bushels. 

Lisbon,  -  --  --  --  --  --  --  240,000  “ 

Odessa,  -  -  -  - .  1,400,000  “ 

W  arsaw, . 2,400,000  “ 

Stockholm,  -  --  --  --  --  --  -  8,000  “ 

Dantzic, . ----  -  2,520,000  “ 

Konigsberg,  -  --  --  --  --  --  -  520,000  “ 

Steitin, . -  2,000,000  “ 

Memel, .  47,712  “ 

Elsinore, .  1,400,000  “ 

Hamburg,  -  --  --  --  --  --  -  4,304,000  ct 

Palermo,  -  --  --  --  --  --  -  1,600,000  “ 

Riga,  } 

Rotterdam,  VNo  quantity  stated. 

Antwerp,  j 

In  addition  to  the  above,  the  same  places  can  export  7,298,072  bushels  of 
rye,  6,820,532  bushels  of  barley,  and  6,469,716  bushels  of  oats,  annually,  over 
and  above  what  is  requisite  for  their  own  consumption. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  entertained  that  these  ports,  nearer  to  England  than 
our  own,  can  afford  an  abundant  supply  of  wheat  and  flour  to  meet  her  average 
consumption ;  and,  as  I  have  shown,  they  have  actually  supplied  most  of  the 
demand  ever  since  her  production  has  not  been  sufficient  for  the  population. 

In  the  third  place,  the  average  price  of  wheat  in  the  countries  to  which  I 
have  referred  is  lower  than  in  our  own  ;  it  is  a  fact  which  arises  from  the  cheap¬ 
ness  of  labor.  I  quote  a  passage  from  Lord  Ashburton’s  speech,  delivered  in 
Parliament,  January,  1846,  as  follows: 

“  But  the  supply  must  not  be  expected  from  America ;  and  we  could  not 
£  have  a  better  proof  of  this  than  the  fact,  that,  at  this  moment,  American  wheat 
‘  could  come  here,  through  Canada,  at  a  duty  of  four  shillings ;  and  yet,  if  the 
‘  returns  were  examined,  it  would  be  found  that  nine-tenths  of  the  foreign  wheat 
i  in  England  was  from  the  Baltic ,  though  the  duty  on  wheat  from  its  shores  was 
£  fifteen  shillings  a  quarter .  This  was  entirely  owing  to  the  low  price  of 
£  labor  in  the  north  of  Europe.” 

I  also  present  a  comparison  of  the  prices  in  the  north  of  Europe  and  in  Eng¬ 
land,  by  which  the  cheapness  of  the  article  at  the  ports  to  which  I  have  referred, 
will  be  clearly  understood. 


Average  prices  of  Wheat  per  bushel  in  Prussia  Average  prices  of  Wheat  per  bushel 

Proper,  including  Dantzic  and  Konigsberg.  in  London. 


In  1828,  - 

-  -  -  $o 

80  -  -  - 

-  -  -  -  #i 

66  i 

1829,  - 

-  -  -  o 

88|  -  -  - 

-  -  -  -  1 

82J 

1830,  - 

.  -  -  o 

81J  -  -  - 

.  .  -  .  1 

76| 

1831,  - 

-  -  -  1 

08f  -  -  - 

-  -  -  -  1 

82  i 

1832,  - 

-  -  -  0 

93  £  -  -  - 

-  -  -  -  1 

6H 

1833,  - 

-  -  -  0 

70  -  -  - 

-  -  -  -  1 

45j 

1834,  - 

-  -  -  0 

65£  -  -  - 

-  .  -  .  1 

27 

1835,  - 

-  -  -  0 

63J  -  -  - 

-  -  -  -  0 

951 

1836,  - 

-  -  -  o 

58  -  -  - 

-  -  -  -  1 

33 1 

1837,  - 

-  -  -  0 

62  -  -  - 

-  -  -  -  1 

56£ 

6 


There  is  no  doubt  that  a  very  considerable  expense  is  necessary  to  get  this 
grain  to  market;  but,  with  every  allowance  for  that  expenditure,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  competition  in  price  will  prevent  us  from  becoming  large  exporters  of 
wheat  to  England.  The  average  price  of  wheat  at  Dantzic,  for  a  series  of  years, 
may  be  stated  at  eighty-eight  cents  for  the  finest  wheat,  and  that  free  on  board 
the  vessel ;  while  at  the  same  time  of  year  the  average  at  New  York  was  cer¬ 
tainly  over  a  dollar.  The  average  price  at  Archangel,  Riga,  and  St.  Peters¬ 
burg,  may  be  stated  to  be  still  lower — say  seventy-seven  cents;  but  it  is  possible 
the  price  of  transportation  may  be  somewhat  higher.  Amsterdam,  Rotterdam, 
Hamburg,  are  also  large  depots  for  wheat.  I  entertain  little  doubt  that  the 
reduction  or  repeal  of  the  English  duties  will  give  a  spur  to  the  industry  of  the 
grain-growers  of  the  north  of  Europe,  and  that  both  in  quantity  and  price  they 
will  command  the  English  market. 

I  desire  to  say  here,  however,  that  the  remarks  I  have  made  upon  this  subject 
do  not  refer  to  the  present  season,  which,  on  account  of  the  failure  of  the  crops 
and  shortness  of  the  harvest,  may  constitute  an  exception ;  but  while  I  admit 
this,  I  wish  also  to  say  that  this  is  itself  an  evidence  of  the  uncertainty  of  the  Eng¬ 
lish  market.  In  1843,  for  instance,  the  importation  was  twenty-three  millions 
of  bushels;  in  1836,  it  was  only  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand  bushels.  It 
depends  upon  the  season  and  the  harvest;  and  while  I  have  stated  the  average 
importation  at  fourteen  millions  of  bushels,  I  desire  it  to  be  understood  that  this 
is  a  large  estimate,  and  that  it  embraces  a  series  of  years.  The  uncertainty  of 
the  English  market  must  render  it  a  poor  one,  if  the  other  causes  to  which  I 
have  alluded  had  no  existence. 

It  has  been  shown  that  our  export  in  1844  was  about  7,300,000  bushels  to 
all  countries,  and  only  about  3,000,000  to  Great  Britain.  It  is  proper  to  sug¬ 
gest  here,  that  the  New  England  States  alone  consume  at  least  7,000,000  of 
bushels  more  than  they  produce — an  amount  equal  to  our  whole  export.  Nor 
should  it  be  forgotten  that,  while  the  English  prices  are  fluctuating  in  the 
extreme,  the  home  prices  are  comparatively  regular.  In  1817  and  1818,  more 
than  21,000,000  of  bushels  of  wheat  were  imported  into  England.  In  1820, 
they  had  a  surplus  of  22,000,000  of  bushels  above  the  home  demand. 

In  December,  1835,  the  price  of  wheat  was  ninety-seven  cents  a  bushel,  and 
in  January,  1839,  it  was  two  dollars  and  twenty-six  cents;  being  a  difference  of 
about  one  hundred  and  twenty-nine  per  cent. 

The  consumption  of  our  country  may  be  safely  stated  to  be  a  hundred  mil¬ 
lions  of  bushels.  I  give  a  table,  which,  though  under  the  true  estimate,  will 
present  what  is  probably  near  the  proportionate  increase  during  the  different 
periods : 


Year. 

Crop — bushels. 

Per  cent,  export¬ 
ed. 

Population. 

Proportion  to  each 
inhabitant. 

1790 

17,000,000 

28 

3,929,328 

4.36 

1800 

22,000,000 

15 

5,309,758 

4.15 

1810 

30,000,000 

14J 

7,239,903 

4.16 

1820 

38,000,000 

15| 

9,638,166 

3.95 

1830 

50,000,000 

12f 

12,866,020 

3.9 

1840 

80,000,000 

14 

17,068,666 

4.7 

From  these  facts,  and  many  others  bearing  upon  the  same  subject,  which  I 


7 

am  not  able  to  incorporate  in  this  letter,  I  have  arrived  at  the  following  conclu¬ 
sions  : 

1st.  That  the  British  wheat  market  has  not  required  more  than  fourteen  mil¬ 
lions  of  bushels  of  wheat  from  abroad,  upon  an  average  of  any  long  series  of 
years. 

2d.  That  a  reduction  of  the  duties  will  not  materially  diminish  the  amount 
produced  by  their  own  agriculture. 

3d.  That  the  quantity  consumed  will  not  be  largely  increased. 

4th.  That  the  market,  both  as  to  quantity  and  price,  must  be  an  unsteady, 
and  therefore  a  poor  one. 

5th.  That  a  reduction  of  the  duty  destroys  the  monopoly  which  we  have 
enjoyed,  in  consequence  of  the  trade  through  Canada. 

6th.  That  the  reduction  of  duties  gives  a  great  advantage  to  the  wheat-growing 
countries  on  the  Mediterranean  and  in  the  North  of  Europe,  beyond  what  they 
have  previously  enjoyed  in  competition  with  us. 

7th.  That  as,  notwithstanding  the  advantages  in  our  favor,  these  countries  have 
supplied  Great  Britain  with  the  larger  portion  of  wheat  imported,  so  they  will 
furnish  a  still  larger  proportion  when  the  duties  are  reduced. 

8th.  That  the  market  created  by  our  own  domestic  consumption  is  steadier, 
broader,  and  in  every  sense  more  profitable,  than  any  other. 

I  repeat,  in  order  not  to  be  misunderstood,  that  the  statements  of  this  letter 
are  not  intended  to  apply  to  this  particular  year ;  because  the  scarcity  all  over 
Europe  may  constitute  an  exception  to  the  general  rule.  Nor  do  I  design  these 
views  to  apply  to  any  other  of  our  productions  than  wheat.  It  may  possibly 
be  true  that  the  proposed  change  in  the  rate  of  duties  in  England  may  increase 
the  demand  for  Indian  corn,  pork,  and  beef.  I  have  not  been  able  to  examine 
the  facts  as  to  these  articles,  and  therefore  I  express  no  opinion. 

But  of  one  thing  I  am  sure,  and  with  that  remark  I  shall  close  this  letter: 
The  English  Ministry  have  been  driven  by  necessity  to  the  course  which  they 
propose  ;  it  is  a  measure  which  is  prompted  by  an  exclusive  regard  for  their  own 
interests,  and  not  by  any  consideration  for  ours. 

It  is  not  the  result  of  our  policy,  either  past  or  proposed  ;  and  whoever  shall 
hold  up  their  practice  as  a  guide  for  us  to  follow,  will  prove  that  he  forgets  the 
difference  in  the  age,  the  circumstances,  the  resources  of  the  two  countries  ;  in 
short,  that  he  is  regardless  of  all  the  reasons  which  should  induce  us  wisely  to 
avail  ourselves  of  the  change,  without  either  feeling  the  necessity  or  following 
the  example. 

I  am,  most  respectfully,  your  fellow-citizen, 

E.  D.  BAKER. 

Washington,  February  27,  1846. 


PRINTED  AT  THE  OFFICE  OF  BLAIR  &  RIVES. 


$ 


I  ■ 

<r  >.  V  .  :*!  ?a  '  ,  V  :(?/  ^  'n-f-T  Jv  .-:W;  )6  */:>'  ■ 


•?  .  Lii>  ■'•*  ;  '  iv  0  r.':  *  wdR '  cr  >  ,y  '  ; 


.*i  ■  >1  riw 

N 

•.  ' • : ! ’  V  •  ,|  V  ‘  .  1  1  ,  f  «. 


.  ’./Ml-  I  •  V>  Ht  *  1i  u  '  ••.:  >  til 


- 


'  .  •  *  ,  '  ■ 

■ 


‘ 

•i.’  sf  •  ;  rr  /i’f  ••  !: ..  tm!:’  Jrr- «  ij  •’  .  w  r*  1c  ot  .  ’*:■  c  >  \  /  :  <  • 

■ 

. 

•  > 


s 


■  . 

p  i  '  •  VL  II' 

'  ■  , 


♦  ' 


r-  * 


